tv [untitled] November 27, 2013 4:30am-5:01am PST
citizen and how do we make this work? and now we have to ask ourselves, san francisco has a marquee name and we have a world class cruise terminal. how can san francisco not have a world class basketball, and it is more than basketball, it is for the whole area. >> people will be coming from everywhere and for myself, i am liking what i am hearing and i hope that corinegets up and talked and rick i need to talk to you, you are the boss. i had to put you on there. and about six months, rick and so if i have seen you and your team here you have regrouped
and come back. and could you tell myself and the commissioners and even the community because everybody is watching where you are going and what you have been up to and i would like to hear to you personally. >> that is the question as it relates to the pro-yekt and i am glad, and listen, and it is such an honor to be working with craig, and since this if you look at his work around the world and i go and look at the museum of modern art every day to see what the new treasure that we are going to have for the city. and the it is committed to 18 months ago, we accepted it has to be a design worthy of a site in san francisco and number one
to has to be 100 percent privately finance and no general fund money and no new tax dollars that will be allocated to make your project happen. and i guess, you know, number three, you have to embrace, the process, that is san francisco. what you saw today we are proud of and because the engineers and doing difficult things, the last time that we presented it was the smallest arena in the nba, it took an incredible amount of work to make that smaller to craoe act to the info that we had.
>> and it turned into something, that becomes a place for everyone in the bay area, to enjoy, and now, i understand that we understand the impact, on the neighborhoods. and but it is not the water front is not only for the neighborhoods to enjoy, we have to be responsible, and i think that we are being responsible in terms of pursuing a transportation plan with the city, that addresses very legitimate concerns and we are at the top of the list of those who have those concerns and we are the entity putting one billion dollars into this project and it needs to work and people need to get there and people need to enjoy the
percent of getting there and everything that happens when they are there and i hope that the way that we are judged and it is up to you to judge us by our actions what we have done has been true to that process that we laid out and we have i am braced the process and i think that the results that you see today are indicative of our approach to this to try to create something great for san francisco in 2017 and generations to come. >> thank you, we appreciate it. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> and i do have a couple of questions, and then i would like to kind of make some general comments and i guess, getting into some of this. so what i heard is the three lanes in and three lanes out, but they could be six lanes in and six lanes out and so i think that... >> and i have some confusion and, there are three lanes only. >> total? >> okay, you can do it like on the bridges, they change it. okay. >> so i guess that at some point there will be study of how that works in terms of the
three lanes in and how that works for the number of traffic. how do we view this in relative context to the other stadiums? >> i think that orracle, or the words play more typical, than urban location like we are talking about here and we park up to 5,000 cars for the event and orricle arena which has bart as the only option and nobody walks, and so we capture every car that attends the 20,000 person event and the facility is only 10 percent smaller in terms of the capacity than what we currently play. and so that kind of gives you
an idea of what the number and normally associated with the facility and we think that it will be critical to the project and it is designed into the architecture of the building because it will never be seen and i think that the point that he made earlier is the one that gets lost in the design discussion is that this is not a single purpose stadium like a football or a baseball stadium this is going to accommodate events of all kind, entertainment more than sports oriented and because of that, i don't know, the group up here probably daisy fans, and when that would come in or the tenors and five and six semis, come with them to unload and load. this is lows them to disappear and the work that gets done, of putting on events is never is seen but also it accommodates at what we think say minimum
number of parking spaces that are or will make the entire city function at its pique efficiency. >> the amount of parking that is available and will be available in the neighborhood in terms of because you obviously with 18,000 people and 500 parking spaces and even the public transit is not going to support the people who want to drive. >> true. and there are 16,000 parking spaces within a 15-minute walk of the site. part of the problem with the way those spaces are used now, and used during the day, and for office traffic, and they are empty at night and so part of our challenge here, we hope from the technology standpoint, is how do we figure out a way and it can't be that hard with the technology that exists today for somebody to be able to utilize the empty parking around the site, that is within an easy walking distance and frankly the transit availability of the public
transportation is the most attractive part of the site for us, and between cal train, and muni and bart and transbay terminal. and the ability thousands of giants fan do to walk from their homes or from their businesses to the site which is unavailable to us now. >> okay, thank you. i want to echo what my fellow commissioners and adams said what this represents to the see and also to see the warriors come back to san francisco, and i do want to say more about what this process is about. and not about to let the project at this point as he pointed out, we are in i think a multiphased and as some of the members of the public have said that we are seeing one piece and we are not seeing the whole project and there are other pieces in terms of the residential towers of the hotel and obviously, and in this commission talks about the traffic congestion as well.
i saw peter here, and that will be one of the key issues that the commission wants to address and we don't just own the arena we own the embarcadero, it effects the area and the pressure being put on it and that is not being entered today and it is under the study and i think that it is important for the public to know that what we saw today, was an update on the design and not taking any action, and we are here to make any comments to hear the public and make any comments it is going to go to a full, cac advisory committee meeting today and if there is any other gaps that have not been addressed, that the public feels is important, that the design team will take a look at and i think that they have taken into consideration and we want to commend them for making the changes and i think that the flow within the site are based on the way that it was presented does indicate that the flow within the site has
been really comprehensively and i think that we now need to understand the flow around the site in terms of the traffic and everything else that is probably or was not on the topic of the day but that is something that the commission is interested in understanding but as manies of you know that one of the things that i am advocating is understanding how water transport is going to play into this as well and the surface transportation as well as the parking and all of that. so i think that is on our minds and i think that it is an improved design and it is a beautiful design, and i think that it is, we do want to see something, iconic on the water front. and i think that it is a legacy for all of us. and we do want to continue to make san francisco a world class city known for everything that we do here in terms of the structures and the entertainment and the sports that we provide is equal to our stature and i think that is not to ignore some of the considerations that we have in the neighborhoods and others. and we just need to keep working on step by step and, so this is just one more step in
the process and it is meant to be answer to everything and i think that is the way that we understand it and the commission and we expect and look forward to having more progress reports. on all of the other components as well and because this is just one component that we saw today. thank you very much. >> commissioners, i just wanted to take a moment also, to expand on the president's mention of the advisory committee meeting. and just to let the commission and the vote know that there will be an advisory committee at pier one. today, this evening, at 6:30, we will be able to hear this presentation in more detail and will be more of an opportunity for the members of the public to delve into all of the issues that were raised here and then, and greater detail, so again, at pier one, and in the bay side, conference rooms, on the ground floor. >> thank you. >> and i also want to mention,
what commissioner brandon said and i think that transparency is important and so it might be helpful when you come back next time if we have more time with the events and hand outs so that we can digest it better. and those of you who are working with it every day, and i mean that it is embedded in your memories, but for this parachuting in, it is kind of hard for us to catch up so quickly. so we do make that suggestion to you for next time. thank you. >> all right, any request of approval of two leases between the port, as landlord, and affordable self storage, inc., a california corporation, as tenant for locations within seawall lot 349 (pier 70) in the southern waterfront: (i) lease no. l-15690, for a mini-storage facility, comprising approximately 74,742 square feet of paved land (resolution no. 13-45); and (ii) lease no. l-15691, for vehicle parking and self-storage containers, comprising approximately 144,818 square feet of paved land, subject to approval by the board of supervisors. (resolution no. 13-46).
>> good afternoon, president ho and commissioners i'm with the port real estate division. and the item before you, contains two new ground leases with the affordable self-storage inc located on sea wall lot 349 in the pier 70 development project area. both leases require approval by the board of supervisors and in accordance with charter section, 9.118 due to anticipated lease revenues in access of 1 million dollars each. and i would like to give you a brief summary of some of the terms and conditions of each lease. >> lease number, l, 15-690. has an initial term of 58 months, with up to five, 12-month options to extend the lease with the port's full
discretion. the lease premises, have an approximate area of 74-742. and the commencement days is january 1, 2014. and the use will be for operation of unlimited storage facility and consisting of the temporary placement of the portable storage containers and administrative offices. and the base rent for a year one of the initial term will be 24,664 dollars per month or 33 cents per square foot. rent, in subsequent years will increase three percent annually. and maintenance and repairs of the premises, and utilities and services provided to the premiseses, are tenant responsibilities. with regard to lease number
l15691, this lease has the term of 31 months. and the lease premises comprised approximately 144,818 square feet. and the estimated commencement date is january 1, 2014. the use will be for storage of vehicles, trucks, buses, and self-storage containers. the base rent for year one will be $47,698 per month or 33 cents, per square foot. rents will also be increased 3 percent annually in subsequent years. maintenance and repair of the premises and utilities and services provided to the premises are tenant responsibilities. and the real estate division staff rec mens approval of the proposed leases and adoption of the two proposed resolutions and i will be happy to answer
any questions that you may have. >> i have one question. >> so moved. >> sorry. >> do you have a second? >> okay. >> a second. >> second. >> okay. >> is there any public comment? >> now, commissioner, murphy? >> well, just a one, question on this company affordable, and they are presently leasing i take it with the port, and how lng is that or how long of a lease do they have, prior to this? new lease? >> good question, and it was a multiple year lease. i don't have that in front of me. >> maybe it is not that important. and i am just referring to, on the lease number 1 5-69 or 690. >> yes.
>> to the paragraph that they have and the configuration. >> and reconfiguration? >> yeah. >> it sounds like it is a great negotiation tool for them? >> yeah. >> and actually, this precipitated by the forest city, in the event that forest city, well, let me back it up with regard to this lease, initially forest city gave us phasing projections for the entire area, and so initially we are looking for a ten-year lease on this site. and then, they looked at it more closely and then, said, five and a five now, it is 58 months and five, one year options and due to their proposed development, they want to have the flexibility to say, we don't need all of it, we may need a portion of it, so that we want to, reduce it, and have
you move off of the site. and so that it will not impair the development, but yet, still allow the port to have a revenue stream until all of the lease area is acquired by forest city. >> yeah, i understand that, with as the forest city is going to be ongoing there for ten years. and but, the other part of that paragraph is that it is essentially saying that when they move or have to move, they will get a space somewhere on the port. somewhere on the port property or in other words, they are guaranteed a space. >> they are not guaranteed. >> they are saying that we will look for the available space and there is i think that there is probably aware that there is a lot of space in the back land, whether it will be acceptable to the tenant and we doebt know what forest city is going to take to us as far as
any reconfiguration. well. don't you think that this lease could be wrapped up without having this paragraph in there? i mean what i am thinking is that, they are in the lease, now. and they are using this paragraph as a negotiating tool to drag on and signing the lease. >> yeah. this will continue, this is in that lease, that gives them up to... and up to 5, 12-month options also, the extension option, and that is the call that the forest city will advice the port and the port in turn will then advise the tenant and as to whether or not they will extend the lease. >> okay. >> so, let's say, forest city and they are out of this completely and we had a lease
similar to this. that forest city did not have anything to do with and they were dealing directly with the port and do you have this paragraph in the leases? could i ask the question. >> this is not a general condition in a poor lease and so this was put into the lease due to the requests from the forest city. >> for both of these. >> yes. >> okay. >> thank you. >> you are welcome. >> any other questions? >> could you tell me a little bit about how this lease is going to benefit the southern water front community benefit beautifiation fund? >> i have spoken with the tenant and i know for sure with regard to the lease 15690 as they have done on the site at 20th and illinois, they have put plants, and greenry to try to beutify the area, and i am not sure what is going to happen. i have brought this to their attention, and made them aware that this has to be addressed
but i am not sure what is going to happen with the vehicle, bus, and truck storage. and i think that part of it is a water situation, with the planning too, but i think that we have talked about putting some greenry out there. >> okay. >> and that is it? >> okay. >> and do you want to comment? >> commissioner brandon? benson, that, the lease revenues from this new lease will be subject to the southern water front community, benefit policy that requires a deposit, of think that 7 or 8 percent lease prosides into the southern water front community benefit fund, is that part of what you are asking. >> yes. and i guess that in addition to that, they are not doing anything else. >> well jerry was just mentioning some potential landscaping improvements that will be over and above that required deposit. and typically it has been the
practice for the port to ask for major improvements to a leasehold area where the ten apartment is getting a longer term agreement than in this case.. >> there are two leases, l15, 690 and 58 months and up to 5, 12-month extensions. >> is that like ten years >> the other lease is, 31 months. >> okay. >> and it is also, about the board of supervisors right? and it has approved, and the bonus..., and i am not legislative drafted and so when we get the, you know the approval here, we will forward the legislation to the board. >> and i am just the word to the question, and i just put it out for the record and normally, when you need to
grant an extension, we will not be precommitting to the rent, and in this case, i think that we just want to note that in order, i think that it is, a little bit of an incentive for them, in terms of when they do need to move, or they are not going to move, and they know what the rate is in advance, which is not normal port policy, and we will be usually at the end of the lease and take it up to the market rate and just for the record to note that the extension terms years six through ten, we have prenegotiated the rate, but the understanding is that the before they leave the space and it is not anticipated that they will be there for the full ten years, and this forest city is probably going to move in prior to that and i think that we just should know that after the... and in terms of making sure that the tenant understanding that and we understand that and because that is a little bit of a concession on our part. >> i think that they understand.
>> so, i guess, i am just trying to figure out, if we know the space is going to be used in the future, we don't know how or how long, but with within the next ten or so years. >> well the one parcel for lease, 15690, is the last source, or the last parcel, for development, and the other because of the 31-month term, is on a faster track apparently. and in their development. >> well the other one, so, when does forest city, project to start developing on that side? >> there are two parcels on the map. and there is the southern parcel, which boarders the nrg site. >> i am talking about the longer term lease. >> that is the longer term lease. >> that is where the current, you know, containerized storage operation is moving to, from
that illinois, on 20th street, and in the current plan, they have put forward and that is in the fourth phase and it could happen, ten to 15 years down the road and however, what is happening now, is that forest city, is in a process of sort of reevaluating the phases, and the use, program, and that will be analyzed under sequa and so the phasing could change and it could change now as a result of that analysis and it could also change because the market conditions end up being much bet and her more sustained than the currently conservatively estimating and so all that we have are the current estimates and we will be back in front of you with a revised forest city plan before the sequa starts to give you an update about the phasing plan and the uses in that area. >> and just, and just kind of in agreement with commissioner murphy, that i am not quite sure, why we are promising, if
they have to be moved in and we know that eventually they will have to move, that we are promising another site within the port and we don't even know if that is available. >> and so, two that point, and so that is something that we, actually asked for. and we have a mechanism to relocate port tens under pretty much all port leases. and, because of the phasing and uncertainty here, and we were wanting to have a number of different options, affordable, is occupying this 20th and illinois parcel right now, and that is a very important parcel in terms of trying to relocate that use so that we can build out the 20th street historic buildings and have construction staging and eventually parking and so we are, we went to affordable to ask them to move. and they were initially, as jerry told you looking for a
ten-year term, and we negotiated back from the ten-year term and we wanted a number of options to be aible to relocate them and this is actually a port option, should we choose it. to relocate them within the five-year term. and then, after that, we have one year options, that are at the port election and so there is no requirement to relocate after that initial five-year term and this is just if we wanted to move them even earlier. >> and within the first five years. >> but the extensions, that does not apply. >> the extensions it does not apply, and this was really, negotiating back from their request for a ten-year location. and so we appreciated their flexibility and in responding to the options that we put forward and we also appreciated forest city accepting the idea that some of these ten sendcies will exist at the water front site beyond their entitlement dates and when we first
negotiated the dna there was a thought that we might deliver the whole site clean free of tenants and we have done work with both parties to get more comfortable with the longer term leasing. >> is the current estimate that in the first five years, given that the forest city is in the development that they will not probably face that relocation issue but it could be the case after five years? >> that is right. >> okay. that is the summary, okay. >> and any further questions or comments? >> all in favor? >> aye. >> aye. >> and okay. resolution, number, 13-45 has passed. >> and 13-46. >> sorry 13-46 as well. >> thank you. >> item 10 a. request authorization to enter into a grant agreement with san francisco planning and urban research association ("spur")
for the "adapting to rising tides: mission creek san francisco, california" project. (resolution no. 13-47. >> good evening commissioners and administration, and i am here representing a larger team, led by brad benson behind me and dave, persad from engineering and carlinsky from spur and we are here to ask you for an authorization to enter into a grant agreement with spur. and at the point overlooking mission bay, and so 1860s. this chart shows, the level rise since the 1900s and the science is very clear, the sea level rise will occur, over the next 50 and 100 years, and a study found that for portland, sea level, it is expected to rise, between ten to 17 inches, by 2050 and between 31 to 69
inches by 2100. executed. and this proposed study represents the staff and a larger effort to address the sea level rise and bewe know that it will impact our property and far less is known about adaptation strategies. and the map here, is the sea wall from china basin north as you see as part of the embarcadero national district and the sea wall south appear 54 was constructed after the 1950s, and my poor attempt to show you where mission creek is located. and mission creek provides a really ideal location to study adaptation strategies because it is one of the lowest lying areas. and storm water run off from mission bay, also trains to mission creek and complicating future flooding events and this is an ideal place to study and